KAI FAKIRA JAIRAM PATIL SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT SHAHADA,NANDURBAR V. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

SA 25/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kai Fakira Jairam Patil Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, the applicant, who filed a Stay Application against an outstanding tax demand of Rs.2,39,55,237 for the assessment year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Dhule, had assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,78,12,419, contrary to the 'nil' income reported by the assessee, leading to the demand. The assessee argued financial constraints and cited previous decisions favoring their case. The Departmental Representative opposed the stay, citing the substantial demand against the assessee. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of the assessee's financial condition to warrant a full stay but agreed to expedite the hearing of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826617 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2025
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BASAVARAJ HIREM ATH
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ PARMAR
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No.25/PUN/2025 Arising out of ITA No.3110/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2016-17 Kai Fakira Jairam Patil Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit Plot No.5A, Vrindavan Nagar, Besides Swami Samartha Kendra, Shahada Tal. Shahada Dist, Nandurbar – 425409 Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule PAN: AAAAK5870D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manoj Parmar Department by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 09-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The assessee through this Stay Application requests the Tribunal to stay on the realization of the outstanding demand of Rs.2,39,55,237/-. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the contents of the Stay Application submitted that as against the ‘nil’ returned income, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,78,12,419/- and thereby raising a huge demand of Rs.2,43,68,307/-. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the assessee has already paid an amount of Rs.4,13,070/- and the Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.25/PUN/2025 assessee is not in a position to pay any further amount on account of financial constraints. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, he submitted that the assessee has a strong prima facie case in its favour since the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions. He accordingly submitted that full stay for realization of the balance outstanding demand should be granted to the assessee. He also requested for an out of turn hearing of the appeal. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that huge demand is pending against the assessee. Therefore, the assessee should be directed to pay atleast 20% of the total outstanding demand. 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. A perusal of the Stay Application and accompanying documents shows that the assessee has not proved its financial condition as on today by filing the requisite bank statement. We are therefore of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting a full stay against the realization of the outstanding demand. We, therefore, reject the Stay Application filed by the assessee. However, the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for an out of turn hearing is accepted and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 03.02.2026 which was announced in the open Court. It was also announced that no separate notice of hearing shall be sent and this order itself shall be deemed to be the service of notice to both the sides to which both the parties agreed. Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA No.25/PUN/2025 5. In the result, the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 9th January, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 09.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 09.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "